Review Comments Resolver Skill

A document with forty comments induces either capitulation (accept-all, the doc becomes committee mush) or avoidance (the comments age until the doc ships around them). Resolution is triage: most comments are mechanical (accept in batch, thank in aggregate), some are substantive-and-right (accept with the change named), some deserve push-back (drafted politely, decided by the doc's owner), and a few contradict each other — those aren't the author's to split; they get reconciled by naming the conflict to its parties. Every comment ends closed, and the doc stays the author's.

What This Skill Produces

• The triage table — every comment sorted: accept-mechanical / accept-substantive / push-back / conflict / out-of-scope
• The batch plan — mechanical fixes applied in one pass, resolved with one courtesy note
• The push-back replies — drafted: the reviewer's point honored, the decision explained, the owner's call made
• The conflict reconciliations — contradicting reviewers named to each other with the author's recommendation
• The closure sweep — nothing left dangling; the resolved-vs-declined summary if the doc's approver wants it

Required Inputs

Ask for these if not provided:

• The comments and the doc — the actual comment set; triage reads them, not a summary of them
• The authority map — whose comments are directives (the approver), whose are advice (peers), whose are taste — the same words resolve differently by author; "consider rewording" from the VP and from a peer are different speech acts
• The doc's non-negotiables — what the author is defending (the recommendation, the scope, the tone) — push-back needs a spine to push from
• The deadline — a closing date makes "let's discuss" comments convert to decisions instead of orbit

Framework: The Resolution Rules

1. Triage before touching: read all comments first, sort into the five bins — resolving in document-order mixes typo fixes with strategy debates and exhausts the author by page three. The bins get processed cheapest-first: mechanical batch, then substantive accepts, then push-backs, then conflicts.
2. Mechanical means batch: typos, clarity nits, formatting — apply all, resolve all, one aggregate thank-you. Individually replying "good catch!" forty times is a day lost to etiquette.
3. Push-back is a reply, not a silence: declining a comment requires saying so — "Kept as-is: the recommendation stays unhedged because reason]; happy to discuss" — because silently-unaddressed comments return in the next review round with reinforcements. The author owns the call on advice-comments; directive-comments that the author disagrees with get escalated as a conversation, not quietly overridden.
4. Conflicts get named, not averaged: when reviewer A wants detail added and reviewer B wants the section cut, the author doesn't split the difference into mush — the conflict is surfaced ("A and B, you're asking for opposites here — my recommendation is B's cut because header test]; A, does the appendix satisfy the need?") and decided once, on the record.
5. The sweep closes everything: every comment ends in resolved / replied / escalated — a doc with lingering open comments reads as contested, and approvers notice. The closing summary ("38 taken, 4 declined with reasons, 2 conflicts resolved with A/B") converts the review round into a credibility artifact.

Output Format

Comment Resolution: doc] — N] comments

The Triage

| # | Comment (gist) | From | Bin | Action | |---|---|---|---|---|

Batch Pass

The mechanical list → applied · the aggregate note]

Push-Backs (drafted)

Per comment: the honor-then-decide reply, verbatim]

Conflicts (reconciled)

Per pair: the naming message + the author's recommendation]

The Sweep

All closed · the summary line for the approver]

Quality Checks

• ] Every comment landed in exactly one bin before any fix was made
• ] The authority map informed the bins — directives and advice resolved differently
• ] Every decline has a stated reason in a reply
• ] No conflict was averaged into mush — each was named and decided
• ] Zero comments remain open at the end

Anti-Patterns

• ] Do not accept-all — forty reviewers produce committee prose; the author is the editor
• ] Do not resolve in page order — bins first, or the strategy debates drown in typo fixes
• ] Do not decline silently — unaddressed comments respawn with allies
• ] Do not split contradictory feedback down the middle — mush satisfies neither reviewer and weakens the doc
• ] Do not leave "let's discuss" comments orbiting — the deadline converts them to decisions